81 FR 21465 - Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance and Veterans' Group Life Insurance-Slayer's Rule Exclusion
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 70 (April 12, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 70 (April 12, 2016)
| Page Range | 21465-21468 | |
| FR Document | 2016-08381 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2016)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 21465-21468] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-08381] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 9 RIN 2900-AN40 Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance and Veterans' Group Life Insurance--Slayer's Rule Exclusion AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans Affairs adopts as final, without change, the final rule seeking comments published on October 3, 2012, amending its regulations governing Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) and Veterans' Group Life Insurance (VGLI). Specifically, this rule prohibits paying insurance proceeds because of the death of a person (decedent) whose life was insured under SGLI or VGLI, or paying a SGLI Traumatic Injury Protection (TSGLI) benefit to a person (slayer) convicted of [[Page 21466]] intentionally and wrongfully killing the decedent or determined in a civil proceeding to intentionally and wrongfully killing the decedent. This prohibition of payment also applies to any family member of the slayer who is not related to the decedent and to any person who assisted the slayer in causing the death of the decedent. Additionally, the term ``domestic partner'' is removed from the definition of ``member of the family''. DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective April 12, 2016. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Monica Keitt, Attorney/Advisor, Department of Veterans Affairs, Insurance Center, 5000 Wissahickon Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19144, (215) 842-2000, ext. 2905. (This is not a toll-free number.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 3, 2012, VA published in the Federal Register (77 FR 60304) a final rule seeking comments that amended 38 CFR 9.1 and 9.5 to prevent certain persons from receiving insurance proceeds through the SGLI, VGLI, or TSGLI program as beneficiaries. The rule prevents payment of proceeds to any persons (slayer) found criminally or civilly liable for intentionally and wrongfully killing a person (decedent) insured under SGLI or VGLI or who is eligible for a TSGLI benefit. It also prevents payment to any persons found criminally or civilly liable for assisting or aiding such a slayer and any member of the slayer's family who is not related to the decedent by blood, legal adoption, or marriage. In a proposed rule published on December 13, 2011, (76 FR 77455), ``domestic partner'' was added to the definition of ``member of the family'' in 38 CFR 9.1(l) for the purposes of 38 CFR 9.5(e) to prevent unjust enrichment of persons who are domestic partners of the slayer based on the rationale that these persons are often in relationships with the slayer equivalent to being ``relatives'' of the slayer. Then, in the final rule published on October 3, 2012, VA removed the term ``domestic partner'' from the definition of ``member of the family'' for the purposes of Sec. 9.5(e) ``due to the unsettled legal landscape surrounding the recognition of such partnerships''. 77 FR at 60305. VA explained that because recognition of the legality of such relationships varies from state to state, VA determined that including such partnerships in this part would cause an undue administrative burden. Interested persons were invited to submit, on or before December 3, 2012, written comments regarding removing the term ``domestic partner'' from the definition. VA received comments from three individuals objecting to removing the term. Public Comments Regarding Removal of the Term ``Domestic Partner'' Two commenters noted that some federal agencies, including VA, have expanded their program definitions of family members to include domestic partners. One commenter noted that a Presidential Memorandum directed Federal agencies to extend certain benefits currently available to Federal employees' spouses and their children to Federal employees' same-sex domestic partners and their children. See Presidential Memorandum--Extension of Benefits to Same-Sex Domestic Partners of Federal Employees (June 2, 2010). One commenter noted that other Federal agencies, such as the General Services Administration, have established through regulations definitions of family members that include domestic partners. One commenter also stated that failure to include domestic partners in the definition of ``member of the family'' would allow a same-sex domestic partner of a slayer to circumvent the regulation, while prohibiting heterosexual spouses of a slayer from receiving insurance benefits. This commenter also stated that ``. . . [i]ncluding domestic partners is important to prevent an aberration in the rule . . .'' and to ``. . . prevent[ ] the unjust collection of life insurance benefits.'' Two commenters noted that the Department of Defense changed its military policies regarding openly gay and lesbian servicemembers, thus VA should change its policy here, since VA is a related agency that serves servicemembers and their families. Two commenters also noted that VA has recognized domestic partnerships in other VA related matters. Specifically, the commenters pointed to VA's hospital visitation policy allowing persons designated as domestic partners to be beneficiaries for SGLI and VGLI benefits. Lastly, one commenter noted that removal of the term domestic partner ``sends a message that VA may not be willing to recognize domestic partners as family in any context.'' However, recent Supreme Court cases and the United States Attorney General help to clarify legally accepted definitions. On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), held that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Sec. 3, Public Law 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, defining ``marriage'' and ``spouse'' for purposes of federal law to preclude recognition of marriages of same-sex couples, is unconstitutional because it violates Fifth Amendment principles by discriminating against same-sex couples who are legally married under state law. VA administers federal benefits and programs that require defining ``spouse'' and ``surviving spouse.'' For purposes of VA benefits, 38 U.S.C. 101(3) and 101(31) define ``surviving spouse'' and ``spouse'' as persons ``of the opposite sex.'' However these definitions (codified separately from DOMA) were not specifically addressed in the Supreme Court's Windsor decision. Then on September 4, 2013, the United States Attorney General announced that the President had directed the Executive Branch to cease enforcement of 38 U.S.C. 101(3) and 101(31), to the extent they preclude provision of veterans' benefits to same-sex married couples, but was silent as to ``domestic partners''. Accordingly, VA ceased to enforce the definitional provisions in title 38 to the extent they preclude provision of veterans' benefits, including SGLI, VGLI, and TSGLI benefits, to same- sex married couples. As a result, VA administers spousal and survivors' benefits to same-sex married couples, provided the marriages meet the requirements of 38 U.S.C. 103(c). Section 103(c) provides that, for purposes of all laws administered by VA, a veteran's marriage is to be recognized according to the law of the place where the parties resided at the time of the marriage or the law of the place where the parties resided when the right to benefits accrued. On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), held that the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out- of-state, but again did not include ``domestic partners''. Accordingly, VA now recognizes all lawful same-sex marriages for VA purposes. In light of Windsor and Obergefell, VA no longer enforces the title 38 definitions of ``spouse'' and ``surviving spouse'' to the extent that they exclude the recognition of same-sex married couples. However, In other words, VA provides benefits to all same-sex ``spouses'' and ``surviving spouses'' of veterans or, in the case of insurance benefits, of servicemembers or former servicemembers, to the extent they are otherwise eligible, based on a State's recognition of the validity of the [[Page 21467]] marriage. However, VA does not currently provide all the same spousal benefits to either same-sex or opposite-sex domestic partners of veterans or, in the case of insurance benefits, of servicemembers or former servicemembers. The comments we received essentially concern equal treatment of same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. The Supreme Court in Windsor and Obergefell accomplished that with regard to marriages but did not address other relationships, such as domestic partnerships or legal unions. Thus, those decisions do not affect VA's decision to remove ``domestic partner'' from the Sec. 9.1(l) definition of ``member of the family.'' Windsor and Obergefell have not changed the unsettled legal landscape surrounding the recognition of both same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partnerships. For instance, recognition of the legality of domestic partnerships continues to vary from state to state and, because the term is not used consistently from state to state, there remains inter-jurisdictional confusion regarding use of that term. Therefore, including domestic partnerships, of both same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples, in the definition of ``member of the family'' in Sec. 9.1(l) would cause an undue administrative burden in applying 38 CFR 9.5(e). Two commenters suggested that VA could establish its own uniform definition of ``domestic partnership'' rather than relying upon varying state laws. The commenters pointed to regulations of other federal agencies establishing definitions of ``domestic partnerships.'' We decline that suggestion for the following reasons. First, it would create inconsistency between VA's recognition of marriages, which, under 38 U.S.C. 103(c), is expressly based on state laws recognizing marriages, and VA's recognition of domestic partnerships or civil unions, which, under the commenters' suggestion, could be inconsistent with state laws governing recognition of such relationships. Second, defining the term ``domestic partner'' without regard to state law would require VA to undertake difficult and burdensome fact-finding actions under imprecise standards. We note that the other agency regulations cited by the commenters are varied and often employ vague and subjective standards, such as requiring a finding that the individuals are in a ``committed relationship'' or ``agree to be responsible for each other's common welfare,'' which may lead to inconsistency in application. Third, VA likely would face difficulty in developing evidence to establish that such standards are satisfied. The primary evidence of whether individuals were in a ``committed relationship'' often may be the testimony of the individuals in that relationship. Such evidence may be difficult to obtain or may be unreliable in relation to this rule, which, unlike the examples cited by the commenters, would preclude, rather than extend, benefits based upon the relationship. Regarding a comment that excluding domestic partnerships from the definition of ``family members'' may result in unjust enrichment to certain domestic partners of persons causing the death of an insured individual, we acknowledge that this is a potential consequence of the rule. However, the alternative standards we have considered, including following varied state laws governing domestic partnerships or establishing our own definition of ``domestic partnership'' based in part on subjective standards, would also pose a risk of yielding inconsistent results and possibly allowing unjust enrichment to certain individuals in specific cases. We believe we have appropriately balanced those risks with the interests of clarity, consistency, and administrative efficiency in determinations made under this rule. Accordingly, VA declines to make any changes to this rulemaking based on the above comments. Justification for the Final Rule Seeking Comments One commenter noted that VA failed to provide good cause for dispensing with advance public notice and the opportunity for public comment. Specifically, the commenter stated that VA failed to provide a sufficient justification for citing ``public interest'' and ``impracticability'' as reasons for proceeding without providing an opportunity for advance notice and comment. We correctly identified public interest as grounds for proceeding with final rule seeking comments, but could have been clearer in explaining that it would have been against the public's interest to delay implementation of the slayer provisions for the purpose of receiving comments on the definition of ``member of the family.'' We designed the rule to prevent slayers from benefiting from their wrongdoing, and any delay in finalizing the rule would have potentially permitted slayers to receive benefits in violation of public policy and ethical concerns. Nonetheless, on October 3, 2012, VA provided the public formal notice and an opportunity to comment on the exclusion of the term ``domestic partner'' through publication of the final rule seeking comments. VA received comments on the exclusion, and we considered those comments in issuing this final rule. Additionally, we note that, since the publication of the October 3, 2012, rule, no case has been affected by the exclusion of ``domestic partner'' from the definition of ``member of the family.'' Based on the rationale set forth above and the preamble in the final rule seeking comments, VA adopts, without change, the rule published on October 3, 2012, at 77 FR 60304. Unfunded Mandates The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments or on the private sector. Paperwork Reduction Act This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501- 3521). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a ``significant regulatory action'' requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), unless OMB waives such review, as ``any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or [[Page 21468]] otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.'' The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at http://www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for ``VA Regulations Published from FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to Date.'' Regulatory Flexibility Act The Secretary of Veterans Affairs hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This final rule will directly affect only individuals and will not directly affect any small entities. Therefore, this rulemaking is also exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number and title for the program affected by this document is 64.103, Life Insurance for Veterans. Signing Authority The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. On April 6, 2016, Robert D. Snyder, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document for publication. List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 9 Life insurance, Military personnel, Veterans. Dated: April 7, 2016. William F. Russo, Director, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs. For the reasons set forth out in the preamble, VA adopts the final rule seeking comments published in the Federal Register at 77 FR 60304 on October 3, 2012, as final without change. [FR Doc. 2016-08381 Filed 4-11-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 21465
(2) Coast Guard Patrol Commander FM marine band radio announcing The bridge owner, Connecticut
means a commissioned, warrant, or specific event date and times. Department of Transportation, requested
petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard (d) Enforcement period. This section a temporary deviation from the normal
who has been designated by the will be enforced from 7:30 a.m. until operating schedule to perform
Commander, Coast Guard Sector 12:30 p.m. on May 14, 2016, and, if emergency repairs at the bridge.
Baltimore. necessary due to inclement weather, Under this temporary deviation, the
(3) Official Patrol means any vessel from 7:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. on May Route 82 Bridge shall open on signal
assigned or approved by Commander, 15, 2016. from April 18, 2016 to June 30, 2016,
Coast Guard Sector Baltimore with a Monday to Friday between 7 a.m. and
Dated: March 31, 2016.
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 3 p.m. if at least two-hour notice is
Lonnie P. Harrison, Jr.,
on board and displaying a Coast Guard given by calling the number posted at
ensign. Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Baltimore.
the bridge.
(4) Participant means all persons and Vessels able to pass under the bridge
vessels participating in the Bay Bridge [FR Doc. 2016–08380 Filed 4–11–16; 8:45 am]
in the closed position may do so at
Paddle event under the auspices of the BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
anytime. The bridge will not be able to
Marine Event Permit issued to the event open for emergencies and there is no
sponsor and approved by Commander, immediate alternate route for vessels to
Coast Guard Sector Baltimore. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
pass.
(c) Special local regulations. (1) The SECURITY
The Coast Guard will inform the users
Coast Guard Patrol Commander may of the waterways through our Local
forbid and control the movement of all Coast Guard
Notice and Broadcast to Mariners of the
vessels and persons, including event change in operating schedule for the
participants, in the regulated area. 33 CFR Part 117
bridge so that vessel operations can
When hailed or signaled by an official arrange their transits to minimize any
[Docket No. USCG–2016–0293]
patrol, a vessel or person in the impact caused by the temporary
regulated area shall immediately Drawbridge Operation Regulation; deviation.
comply with the directions given. Connecticut River, East Haddam, CT In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e),
Failure to do so may result in expulsion the drawbridge must return to its regular
from the area, citation for failure to AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
operating schedule immediately at the
comply, or both. The Coast Guard Patrol ACTION:Notice of deviation from end of the effective period of this
Commander may terminate the event, or drawbridge regulation. temporary deviation. This deviation
the operation of any support vessel from the operating regulations is
participating in the event, at any time it SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a
temporary deviation from the operating authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
is deemed necessary for the protection
of life or property. schedule that governs the Route 82 Dated: April 6, 2016.
(2) Except for participants and vessels Bridge across the Connecticut River, C.J. Bisignano,
already at berth, mooring, or anchor, all mile 16.8, at East Haddam, Connecticut. Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist,
persons and vessels within the regulated This deviation is necessary to allow the First Coast Guard District.
area at the time it is implemented are to bridge owner to perform emergency [FR Doc. 2016–08296 Filed 4–11–16; 8:45 am]
depart the regulated area. repairs at the bridge. BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
(3) Persons desiring to transit the DATES: This deviation is effective from
regulated area must first obtain 7 a.m. on April 18, 2016 to 3 p.m. on
authorization from the Captain of the June 30, 2016. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
Port Baltimore or Coast Guard Patrol ADDRESSES: The docket for this AFFAIRS
Commander. Prior to the enforcement deviation, [USCG–2016–0293] is
period, to seek permission to transit the available at http://www.regulations.gov. 38 CFR Part 9
area, the Captain of the Port Baltimore Type the docket number in the RIN 2900–AN40
can be contacted at telephone number ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH’’.
410–576–2693 or on Marine Band Click on Open Docket Folder on the line Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance
Radio, VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 associated with this deviation. and Veterans’ Group Life Insurance—
MHz). During the enforcement period, Slayer’s Rule Exclusion
to seek permission to transit the area, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
the Coast Guard Patrol Commander can you have questions on this temporary AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
be contacted on Marine Band Radio, deviation, call or email Judy Leung-Yee,
ACTION: Final rule.
VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) for Project Officer, First Coast Guard
direction. District, telephone (212) 514–4330, SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans
(4) The Coast Guard may be assisted email judy.k.leung-yee@uscg.mil. Affairs adopts as final, without change,
in the patrol and enforcement of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Route the final rule seeking comments
regulated area by other Federal, State, 82 Bridge, mile 16.8, across the published on October 3, 2012, amending
and local agencies. The Coast Guard Connecticut River, has a vertical its regulations governing
Patrol Commander and official patrol clearance in the closed position of 22 Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance
vessels enforcing this regulated area can feet at mean high water and 25 feet at (SGLI) and Veterans’ Group Life
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
be contacted on marine band radio mean low water. The existing bridge Insurance (VGLI). Specifically, this rule
VHF–FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and operating regulations are found at 33 prohibits paying insurance proceeds
channel 22A (157.1 MHz). CFR 117.205(c). because of the death of a person
(5) The Coast Guard will publish a The waterway is transited by seasonal (decedent) whose life was insured under
notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District recreational traffic and some SGLI or VGLI, or paying a SGLI
Local Notice to Mariners and issue a commercial barge traffic of various Traumatic Injury Protection (TSGLI)
marine information broadcast on VHF– sizes. benefit to a person (slayer) convicted of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Apr 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM 12APR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_21535/page/1.svg)
![21466 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
intentionally and wrongfully killing the definition. VA received comments from of federal law to preclude recognition of
decedent or determined in a civil three individuals objecting to removing marriages of same-sex couples, is
proceeding to intentionally and the term. unconstitutional because it violates
wrongfully killing the decedent. This Fifth Amendment principles by
Public Comments Regarding Removal
prohibition of payment also applies to discriminating against same-sex couples
of the Term ‘‘Domestic Partner’’
any family member of the slayer who is who are legally married under state law.
not related to the decedent and to any Two commenters noted that some VA administers federal benefits and
person who assisted the slayer in federal agencies, including VA, have programs that require defining ‘‘spouse’’
causing the death of the decedent. expanded their program definitions of and ‘‘surviving spouse.’’ For purposes of
Additionally, the term ‘‘domestic family members to include domestic VA benefits, 38 U.S.C. 101(3) and
partner’’ is removed from the definition partners. One commenter noted that a 101(31) define ‘‘surviving spouse’’ and
of ‘‘member of the family’’. Presidential Memorandum directed ‘‘spouse’’ as persons ‘‘of the opposite
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is Federal agencies to extend certain sex.’’ However these definitions
effective April 12, 2016. benefits currently available to Federal (codified separately from DOMA) were
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
employees’ spouses and their children not specifically addressed in the
Monica Keitt, Attorney/Advisor, to Federal employees’ same-sex Supreme Court’s Windsor decision.
Department of Veterans Affairs, domestic partners and their children. Then on September 4, 2013, the United
Insurance Center, 5000 Wissahickon See Presidential Memorandum— States Attorney General announced that
Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19144, (215) Extension of Benefits to Same-Sex the President had directed the Executive
842–2000, ext. 2905. (This is not a toll- Domestic Partners of Federal Employees Branch to cease enforcement of 38
(June 2, 2010). One commenter noted U.S.C. 101(3) and 101(31), to the extent
free number.)
that other Federal agencies, such as the they preclude provision of veterans’
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
General Services Administration, have benefits to same-sex married couples,
October 3, 2012, VA published in the established through regulations
Federal Register (77 FR 60304) a final but was silent as to ‘‘domestic partners’’.
definitions of family members that Accordingly, VA ceased to enforce the
rule seeking comments that amended 38 include domestic partners. definitional provisions in title 38 to the
CFR 9.1 and 9.5 to prevent certain One commenter also stated that extent they preclude provision of
persons from receiving insurance failure to include domestic partners in veterans’ benefits, including SGLI,
proceeds through the SGLI, VGLI, or the definition of ‘‘member of the family’’ VGLI, and TSGLI benefits, to same-sex
TSGLI program as beneficiaries. The would allow a same-sex domestic married couples. As a result, VA
rule prevents payment of proceeds to partner of a slayer to circumvent the administers spousal and survivors’
any persons (slayer) found criminally or regulation, while prohibiting benefits to same-sex married couples,
civilly liable for intentionally and heterosexual spouses of a slayer from provided the marriages meet the
wrongfully killing a person (decedent) receiving insurance benefits. This requirements of 38 U.S.C. 103(c).
insured under SGLI or VGLI or who is commenter also stated that ‘‘. . . Section 103(c) provides that, for
eligible for a TSGLI benefit. It also [i]ncluding domestic partners is purposes of all laws administered by
prevents payment to any persons found important to prevent an aberration in VA, a veteran’s marriage is to be
criminally or civilly liable for assisting the rule . . .’’ and to ‘‘. . . prevent[ ] recognized according to the law of the
or aiding such a slayer and any member the unjust collection of life insurance place where the parties resided at the
of the slayer’s family who is not related benefits.’’ time of the marriage or the law of the
to the decedent by blood, legal Two commenters noted that the place where the parties resided when
adoption, or marriage. In a proposed Department of Defense changed its the right to benefits accrued.
rule published on December 13, 2011, military policies regarding openly gay On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court
(76 FR 77455), ‘‘domestic partner’’ was and lesbian servicemembers, thus VA in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584
added to the definition of ‘‘member of should change its policy here, since VA (2015), held that the Fourteenth
the family’’ in 38 CFR 9.1(l) for the is a related agency that serves Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
purposes of 38 CFR 9.5(e) to prevent servicemembers and their families. requires a state to license a marriage
unjust enrichment of persons who are Two commenters also noted that VA between two people of the same sex and
domestic partners of the slayer based on has recognized domestic partnerships in to recognize a marriage between two
the rationale that these persons are often other VA related matters. Specifically, people of the same sex when their
in relationships with the slayer the commenters pointed to VA’s marriage was lawfully licensed and
equivalent to being ‘‘relatives’’ of the hospital visitation policy allowing performed out-of-state, but again did not
slayer. Then, in the final rule published persons designated as domestic partners include ‘‘domestic partners’’.
on October 3, 2012, VA removed the to be beneficiaries for SGLI and VGLI Accordingly, VA now recognizes all
term ‘‘domestic partner’’ from the benefits. lawful same-sex marriages for VA
definition of ‘‘member of the family’’ for Lastly, one commenter noted that purposes.
the purposes of § 9.5(e) ‘‘due to the removal of the term domestic partner In light of Windsor and Obergefell, VA
unsettled legal landscape surrounding ‘‘sends a message that VA may not be no longer enforces the title 38
the recognition of such partnerships’’. willing to recognize domestic partners definitions of ‘‘spouse’’ and ‘‘surviving
77 FR at 60305. VA explained that as family in any context.’’ However, spouse’’ to the extent that they exclude
because recognition of the legality of recent Supreme Court cases and the the recognition of same-sex married
such relationships varies from state to United States Attorney General help to couples. However, In other words, VA
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
state, VA determined that including clarify legally accepted definitions. On provides benefits to all same-sex
such partnerships in this part would June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court in ‘‘spouses’’ and ‘‘surviving spouses’’ of
cause an undue administrative burden. United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. veterans or, in the case of insurance
Interested persons were invited to 2675 (2013), held that the Defense of benefits, of servicemembers or former
submit, on or before December 3, 2012, Marriage Act (DOMA), Sec. 3, Public servicemembers, to the extent they are
written comments regarding removing Law 104–199, 110 Stat. 2419, defining otherwise eligible, based on a State’s
the term ‘‘domestic partner’’ from the ‘‘marriage’’ and ‘‘spouse’’ for purposes recognition of the validity of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Apr 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM 12APR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_21535/page/2.svg)
![21468 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 12, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
otherwise interfere with an action taken Dated: April 7, 2016. Regulation Number 3. These revisions
or planned by another agency; (3) William F. Russo, became effective on February 24, 2016
Materially alter the budgetary impact of Director, Office of Regulation Policy & as correctly noted in the rule preamble.
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan Management, Office of the General Counsel, The ‘‘EPA Effective Date’’ within the
programs or the rights and obligations of Department of Veterans Affairs. regulatory text for this action was
recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel For the reasons set forth out in the inadvertently listed as January 25, 2016.
legal or policy issues arising out of legal preamble, VA adopts the final rule This correction revises the ‘‘EPA
mandates, the President’s priorities, or seeking comments published in the Effective Date’’ within the regulatory
the principles set forth in this Executive Federal Register at 77 FR 60304 on text to reflect the actual EPA effective
Order.’’ October 3, 2012, as final without date of February 24, 2016.
The economic, interagency, change.
budgetary, legal, and policy List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
[FR Doc. 2016–08381 Filed 4–11–16; 8:45 am]
implications of this regulatory action Environmental protection, Air
BILLING CODE 8320–01–P
have been examined, and it has been pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
determined not to be a significant Incorporation by reference,
regulatory action under Executive Order Intergovernmental relations,
12866. VA’s impact analysis can be ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY Greenhouse gases, Lead, Nitrogen
found as a supporting document at dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
http://www.regulations.gov, usually Reporting and recordkeeping
within 48 hours after the rulemaking 40 CFR Part 52
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
document is published. Additionally, a [EPA–R08–OAR–2015–0493; FRL–9942–84– organic compounds.
copy of the rulemaking and its impact Region 8]
analysis are available on VA’s Web site Accordingly, 40 CFR part 52 is
at http://www.va.gov/orpm/, by Approval and Promulgation of Air corrected by making the following
following the link for ‘‘VA Regulations Quality Implementation Plans; correcting amendments:
Published from FY 2004 Through Fiscal Colorado; Revisions to Common
Year to Date.’’ Provisions and Regulation Number 3; PART 52—APPROVAL AND
Corrections PROMULGATION OF
Regulatory Flexibility Act IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs AGENCY: Environmental Protection
hereby certifies that this final rule will Agency (EPA). ■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52
not have a significant economic impact ACTION: Correcting amendments. continues to read as follows:
on a substantial number of small entities Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
as they are defined in the Regulatory
Agency (EPA) published in the January
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This Subpart G—Colorado
25, 2016 Federal Register a document
final rule will directly affect only
concerning the approval of Air Quality
individuals and will not directly affect ■ 2. Section 52.320(c), the Table is
any small entities. Therefore, this State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions to Colorado Common amended:
rulemaking is also exempt pursuant to ■ a. Under ‘‘5 CCR 1001–02 Common
5 U.S.C. 605(b), from the initial and Provisions and Regulation Number 3.
Inadvertently, the publication date of Provision Regulation’’ by revising
final regulatory flexibility analysis entries ‘‘I’’ and ‘‘II’’;
requirements of sections 603 and 604. January 25, 2016 was listed in the
regulatory text under the heading ‘‘EPA ■ b. Under ‘‘5 CCR 1001–05, Regulation
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Effective Date’’ instead of the effective Number 3, Part A, Concerning General
The Catalog of Federal Domestic date of February 24, 2016. The correct Provisions Applicable to Reporting and
Assistance number and title for the EPA effective date was provided in the Permitting’’ by revising entries ‘‘I’’, ‘‘II’’,
program affected by this document is rule preamble. This document corrects ‘‘V’’, ‘‘VI’’, ‘‘VIII’’, and ‘‘Appendix B’’;
64.103, Life Insurance for Veterans. the ‘‘EPA Effective Date’’ within the ■ c. Under ‘‘5 CCR 1001–05, Regulation
regulatory text to February 24, 2016. Number 3, Part B, Concerning
Signing Authority
DATES: This correcting amendment is Construction Permits’’ by revising
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or effective on April 12, 2016. entries ‘‘II’’ and ‘‘III’’; and
designee, approved this document and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: ■ d. Under ‘‘5 CCR 1001–05, Regulation
authorized the undersigned to sign and Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, U.S.
submit the document to the Office of the Number 3, Part D, Concerning Major
Environmental Protection Agency Stationary Source New Source Review
Federal Register for publication (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR,
electronically as an official document of and Prevention of Significant
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado Deterioration’’ by revising entries ‘‘I’’,
the Department of Veterans Affairs. On 80202–1129, (303) 312–6252,
April 6, 2016, Robert D. Snyder, Chief ‘‘II’’, ‘‘III’’, ‘‘V’’, ‘‘VI’’, ‘‘X’’ ‘‘XIII’’,
dobrahner.jaslyn@epa.gov. ‘‘XIV’’, and ‘‘XV’’.
of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs,
approved this document for publication. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA The revisions read as follows:
published a document in the January 25,
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 9 § 52.320 Identification of plan.
2016 Federal Register (81 FR 3963)
Life insurance, Military personnel, concerning air quality SIP revisions to * * * * *
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Veterans. Colorado’s Common Provisions and (c) * * *
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:11 Apr 11, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12APR1.SGM 12APR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_21535/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2016-04-12 00:47:18
Document Modified: 2016-04-12 00:47:18
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Contact | Monica Keitt, Attorney/Advisor, Department of Veterans Affairs, Insurance Center, 5000 Wissahickon Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19144, (215) 842-2000, ext. 2905. (This is not a toll-free number.) | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 21465 | |
| RIN Number | 2900-AN40 | |
| CFR Associated | Life Insurance; Military Personnel and Veterans |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR